Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "meta" <meta AT rraz.net>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant
  • Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 19:42:21 -0700



<<John responds:
Heqim is used to in the sense of carrying out a covenant that already exists
rather than cutting a new covenant according to
Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius' (BDB) analysis in addition to the work of W.G.
Dumbrell. BDB states that in all cases he lists except Jeremiah 34:10, carat
berit is the technical phrase for making a covenant. It might be better for
you to provide and instance where 'establishing' (heqim) a covenant refers
to initiating a covenant.>>

Richard: Since I know nothing about your sources, strange to me, I cannot
respond, but my sense is that you are bound to your preferences rather than
open-minded to alternative sources. The HB is a compilation of interrelated
stories, marvelously composed by a literary genius (or several). BTW I do
not propose that my remarks reflect historical situations, but rather these
are the ways, interpretations, I read the stories, what they mean. What I
see in them is an evolving relationship (as I said before), beginning with a
god seeking a people and culminating in an established relationship with a
people greatly needing its very own god. The covenantal relationship
developed from merely Yahweh's promise into Moses' leading the people into a
formal irrevocable obligatory contract. This is the way I see the overall
covenant story unfolding.

<<However, this inspiration works well for me within my own
presuppositions.>>

Richard: I try my best not to impose any presuppositions on the narrative.
I try to understand what the stories say and understand the meaning of the
whole. There is a beginning--all the way back to creation, then a
relationship to follow established lines, which failed and resulted in
eradication and exile of the people and loss of their land. But now they
are given another chance due to mercy and grace of their god, and here they
are--back in Jerusalem in a very meager way and looking back through their
history to understand how they got there now. The author(s) places history
in story form to tell the overall story in terms of the meanings (yes,
presuppositions) he/they want to tell for the people. For example, we know
the Exodus never happened as told, but the meaning is there. Frankly I
think you have a lot to learn about how to define ancient terms, and I don't
think your favorite dictionary and most certainly etymology are going to do
it for you.

<<You are working from the assumption of Graf-Welhaussen (Documentary
Hypothesis or JEPD) in your attempting to show that each vignette must be
interpreted within itself. Other scholars working from the same
Graf-Welhaussen presupposition argue for a unity of the final redaction of
the Hexateuch.....>>

Richard: Yes, the DH has been revised somewhat, but it still seems to be
the best theory of material that was used in the final composition, which as
I state above, was a marvelous composition of interweaving these traditions
into a coherent whole. I have no argument about your characterizations of
covenant, but I think you have watered it down to only the establishment and
further developments of a relationship between a god, who always is in
control, and a people. If you want to make Gen. 2 a covenant, then all of
the Tanakh is a covenant. Whatever, I think at this point we have exhausted
the idea of covenant. And on the life for life thing, where you disagree
about the Code of Hammurabi, you might want to check it out for various
applications of the death penalty, life for life specifically in 229, 230,
as well as the eye for an eye theory.

Richard Godwin.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page